DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 20 August 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 14 and 20 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1) and further in view of Stanton (US Patent 7,951,226 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Moe
In Re Claim 1, Moe discloses an apparatus (see annotated Figure 1 above and Figure 3), comprising:
a first fluid end body (8) configured to be attached to a second fluid end body (5, 3), the first fluid end body comprising: an external surface having a front side (see annotated figure above) and an opposed back side (see annotated figure above) and opposed top and bottom ends (see annotated figure above); and a bore pair (see Figure 3: 14 is one bore and 11/15 is another bore), each bore pair comprising: a first bore (from 11 to 15 in Figure 3) extending through the first fluid end body (8) and terminating at openings (11, 15) formed in the top and bottom ends (Column 3, Lines 46 – 63; Figure 3), the first bore (11/15) configured to receive a discharge valve (19); and a second bore (14) extending through the first fluid end body (8), intersecting the first bore (11/15), and terminating at opening (into which 3 fits as shown in Figure 1) formed in the back side, the second bore (14) configured to receive at least a portion of a plunger (4)(Column 3, Lines 58 – 63; Figure 1); and a plurality of threaded openings (64) formed in the first fluid end body (8), each of the plurality of openings configured to receive a stud (7) in a one-to-one relationship, the studs (7) configured to releasably attach the first fluid end body (8) to the second fluid end body (5, 3); and an intake valve (18) situated within the first bore (11/15; from 11 – 15), the intake valve (18) comprising: a valve body (21, 23; Column 4, Lines 15 – 16); and a valve seat (17 plus 20 combined) engaging a walled surface (as shown in Figure 1) of the first bore (11/15; from 11 – 15); (Figures 1, 2; Column 5, Lines 49 – 51).
Moe does not disclose a plurality of bore pairs (it only discloses one bore pair) and Moe does not disclose that the second bore terminates at an opening formed in the front side.
However, Morreale discloses a plurality of bore pairs (429, 417 in Figure 6J). Morreale also discloses that second bore (429) terminates at an opening (431) formed in the front side (Figures 6G and 6)(paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first fluid end of Moe to include a plurality of bore pairs as taught by Morreale (instead of just one) because it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art — St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the second bore of each bore pair of Moe such that it terminates at an opening formed in the front side as taught by Morreale for the purpose of providing access to the interior (paragraph [0043] of Morreale refers to 429 as an access bore).
Moe and Morreale are silent with regards to the material of the first and second fluid end bodies.
However, Stachowiak discloses that the second fluid end body (13) is made of mild steel that has lower fatigue strength than conventional fluid end bodies (Column 4, Lines 28 — 36).
Further, paragraph [0020] of Graham discloses a first fluid end body (108) that is made of a material having increased strength such as high carbon steel (which is stronger than mild steel, mild steel has lower carbon content).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make the first fluid end body of Moe / Morreale from high carbon steel as taught by Graham and to make the second fluid end body of Moe / Morreale from mild steel as taught by Stachowiak because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a Known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Moe, Morreale, Stachowiak and Graham do not disclose a box gland and stuffing box situated within the first and second fluid end bodies.
However, Figure 1 of Stanton discloses a box gland (34, 37) situated at least partially within the second fluid end body (36) and a stuffing box (49, 48, 32, 46, 42, 40) situated at least partially within the box gland (34, 37) and both the first fluid end body (12) and second fluid end body (36), the stuffing box (49, 48, 32, 46, 42, 40) configured to house a plurality of packing seals (42) (Column 10, Line 64 – Column 11, Line 55; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the fluid end of Moe / Morreale / Stachowiak / Graham to incorporate a box gland and stuffing box as taught by Stanton for the purpose of sealing the piston in the fluid end.
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 3 shows the first fluid end body (8) as a rectangular block, therefore there are no flanges.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Moe discloses that the first fluid end body (8) is configured to attached to the second fluid end body (5, 3) such that at least a portion of the first fluid end body (8) is in flush engagement with at least a portion of the second fluid end body (5,3)(the flush engagement occurs where the back of the first fluid end body contacts the front of the second fluid end body as depicted in Figure 1).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 3 of Moe discloses that the first bore (11, 15) is orthogonal to the second bore (14).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 1 of Moe discloses that the first fluid end body (8) is thicker (where thickness is measured in the horizontal direction of the figure) than the second fluid end body (5, 3).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1) and in view of Stanton (US Patent 7,951,226 B2) and further in view of Yater (PG Pub US 20100038134 A1).
In Re Claim 4, Moe, Morreale, Stachowiak, Graham and Stanton disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Moe discloses a discharge plug (13) but they do not disclose a retainer attached to the external surface and engaging the discharge plug.
However, Figure 9A of Yater discloses a (first) fluid end body (502) having a bore (504; extending from the top at 36 and includes space occupied by sleeve 170), a discharge plug (104) installed within the bore, in which the discharge plug (104) closes the first bore (since it is a “cap”); and a first retainer (112, 114) attached to the external surface of the first fluid end body (502) and engaging the discharge plug (104) via (114)(paragraphs [0168],[0181]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the discharge plug of Moe / Morreale / Stachowiak / Graham / Stanton such that the retainer is attached to the external surface and engaging the discharge plug as taught by Yater for the purpose of securing the discharge plug to the fluid end.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1) and in view of Stanton (US Patent 7,951,226 B2) and in view of Yater (PG Pub US 20100038134 A1) and further in view of Jensen (PG Pub US 20090172944 A1).
In Re Claim 5, Moe, Morreale, Stachowiak, Graham, Stanton, Yater disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, but they do not disclose a second plug with a second retainer.
However, Figure 4 of Jensen discloses a second bore (occupied by piston 32 and second plug/retainer 12), and a second plug (12) and second retainer (90) attached to the first fluid end body (28) and engaging the second plug (90)(paragraph [0025]; Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / Stachowiak / Graham / Stanton / Yater to incorporate a second plug and second retainer as taught by Jensen for the purpose of providing access for maintenance of the fluid end (paragraph [0019] of Jensen).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1) and in view of Stanton (US Patent 7,951,226 B2) and further in view of Kumar (PG Pub US 20190136840 A1).
In Re Claim 10, Moe, Morreale, Stachowiak, Graham and Stanton disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Moe further discloses that the first fluid end body (8) further comprises: a plurality of blind pin bores (64; Figure 3) formed in the back side of the first fluid end body (8), the plurality of blind pin bores (64) configured to align with a plurality of pin bores (corresponding to where screws 7 penetrate in Figure 1) formed within the second fluid end body (5, 3; Figure 1) in a one-to-one relationship (Column 5, Lines 49 – 51); and a plurality of pins (7) situated at least partially in the plurality of blind pin bores (64; Figure 3) and at least partially within the plurality of pin bores (corresponding to where screws 7 penetrate in Figure 1).
As discussed above, the screw (7) of Moe reads on a “pin” under the BRI standard. Alternatively, if it not clear to applicant that a screw can be interpreted as a pin under the BRI standard (this is not an admission by the examiner):
However, paragraph [0024] of Kumar discloses alignment pin holes and pins disposed in end plates and power end and fluid end surfaces (i.e. the claimed first and second fluid end bodies) can be used to ensure proper alignment and installation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to align the first and second fluid end bodies of Moe by incorporating holes and alignment pins as taught by Kumar for the purpose of ensuring proper alignment and installation. Further, screws are equivalent fasteners to pins as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize. Both are commonly used types of fasteners used to join two structures together and the choice of one over the other is a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of McMullen (US Patent 0,859,329 A) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and further in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1).
In Re Claim 11, Moe discloses an apparatus (see annotated Figure 1 above and Figure 3), comprising: a second fluid end body (5, 3) configured to be attached to a first fluid end body (8) via a plurality of studs (7), the second fluid end body (5, 3) comprising: an external surface having a front side (see annotated figure above) and an opposed back side (see annotated figure above), in which the front side is configured to engage the first fluid end body (8; Figure 1); a bore (within cylinder 3, in a one on one relationship with 14) extending through the second fluid end body (5, 3), each bore (in 3) terminating at an opening formed in the external surface (where it contacts 8) and configured to receive at least a portion of a plunger (4); a plurality of first passages (where screw 7 penetrates) extending through the second fluid end body (5, 3), each first passage (where screw 7 penetrates) configured to receive one of the plurality of studs (7) in a one-to-one relationship (Column 3, Lines 50 – 52); (Column 5, Lines 49 – 51).
Moe does not explicitly disclose interfacing between the first fluid end body and a power end, and a plurality of bores – each of which receive a plunger (only one bore-plunger is disclosed), and Moe does not explicitly disclose a plurality of second passages and stay rods.
However, Morreale discloses a second fluid end body (450; Figure 5B) configured to interface between the first fluid end body (420; Figure 5C) and a power end (410, 411), a plurality of bores (437) – each of which receive a plunger (424), and a plurality of second passages (448h; Figure 5A; paragraph [0038]) extending through the second fluid end body (420), each second passage (448h) configured to receive a stay rod (422) in a one-to-one relationship, the stay rods (422) configured to attach the second fluid end body (450) to the power end (410, 411) such that the back side of the second fluid end body (450) faces and is in a spaced-relationship (spacers 412) with a front surface (where 413 are in Figure 5A) of the power end (410, 411).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the second fluid end of Moe to include a plurality of bores – each having a plunger as taught by Morreale (instead of just one having one plunger) because it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art — St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a power end in spaced relationship with the second fluid end interfacing between the power end and the first fluid end via stay rods in a plurality of second passages as taught by Morreale into the apparatus of Moe for the purpose of connecting the fluid ends to a suitable drive for the plungers.
Moe and Morreale do not disclose a stuffing box, box gland, a retainer and a plurality of third passages with fasteners.
However, Figure 1 of McMullen discloses a first fluid end body (“a”) and a second fluid end body (“b3”) having a reciprocating piston (“a2”,”a3”) having one bore (“b4”) extending through the second fluid end body (“b3”), the bore terminating at an opening formed in the external surface and configured to receive at least a portion of plunger (“a3”) (Page 1, Lines 60 – 73); a stuffing box (“e”, ”g”, “f”) configured to receive a packing assembly (“f” is the label for each packing ring, all the rings combined read on a packing assembly)(Page 1, Line 101 – Page 2, Line 2); a retainer (“d”) configured to engage the stuffing box (at “g”) via clamping bolts (“d4”)(Page 1, Lines 95 – 100; Page 2, Lines 44 – 49); and a plurality of {third} passages (that receive the left end of the clamping bolts “d4”) extending partially through the second fluid end body (“b3”), each third passage configured to receive a fastener (“d4”) in a one-to- one relationship, the fasteners (“d4”) configured to attach the retainer (“d”) to the second fluid end body (“b3”) via nuts “d6” / “d5”; and a box gland (“c”) situated at least partially within the second fluid end body (“b3”)(Page 1, Line 75; Page 2, Lines 33 – 43), the box gland (“c”) receiving at least a portion of the stuffing box (“e”, ”g”, “f”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the second fluid end body of Moe / Morreale to incorporate a stuffing box, box gland, a retainer and a plurality of third passages with fasteners as taught by McMullen for the purpose of providing a secure and tight packing seal with a minimum of expense (Page 1, Lines 36 – 37 of McMullen).
Moe, Morreale and McMullen are silent with regards to the material of the first and second fluid end bodies.
However, Stachowiak discloses that the second fluid end body (13) is made of mild steel that has lower fatigue strength than conventional fluid end bodies (Column 4, Lines 28 — 36).
Further, paragraph [0020] of Graham discloses a first fluid end body (108) that is made of a material having increased strength such as high carbon steel (which is stronger than mild steel, mild steel has lower carbon content).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make the first fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / McMullen from high carbon steel as taught by Graham and to make the second fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / McMullen from mild steel as taught by Stachowiak because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a Known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Morreale discloses that the second fluid end body (450; Figure 5B) has the shape of a rectangular prism as depicted.
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Figure 1 of Moe depicts that the combination of elements (5) and (3) of the designated second fluid end body has no flanges.
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Figure 1 of Moe discloses that the first fluid end body (8) is thicker (where thickness is measured in the horizontal direction of the figure) than the second fluid end body (5, 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of McMullen (US Patent 0,859,329 A) and in view of Stachowiak (US Patent 4,878,815 A) and in view of Graham (PG Pub US 20190128104 A1) and further in view of Forrest (US Patent 9,371,919 B2).
In Re Claim 20, Moe, Morreale, McMullen, Stachowiak and Graham disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Moe discloses that the first fluid end body (8) is formed in one piece, but they do not disclose that the first and second fluid end bodies have the same height and width, such that they form a rectangular prism.
However, Figure 1 of Forrest discloses that the first fluid end body (30) and second fluid end body (20) have the same height and width because they are flush with each other as depicted such that a rectangular prism is formable by assembly of only the first (30) and second (20) fluid end bodies.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the width and height of the first fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / McMullen / Stachowiak / Graham so that they are equal to the respective width and respective height of the second fluid end body such that they form a rectangular prism as taught by Forrest for the purpose of making the device compact, and for the purpose of reducing uneven external surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746